Sometimes a finger is just a finger

" So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel,"

Who knows what T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) really said, but Peter O'Toole delivered that line in the eponymous movie.  I can't help recalling the scene when listening to the God Damned Republicans trying to blame the situation in the Crimea on President Obama and trying to make sure it all goes badly for everyone so that Americans will come to their senses and elect some silly, greedy and barbarous puppet to represent crackpot religion, rabid nationalism and klepto-Capitalism. Why not? We're already silly, greedy, barbarous and cruel: a little people with big rhetoric, a cruel people with small minds and big guns.

It's not because of Republicans -- it's because of us, because of who and what we are and it shows in everything we do, well-intentioned or not.  It shows in how we latch onto theories and justify them with good intentions and use them to make things worse.  It shows in how we alienate allies by making good causes less about goodness than about rhetorical conformity, it shows in how we make facts bow to theory and let the theories we obey make things worse.

So how do you make schools safer?  Does it help to reduce tensions, make students feel less alienated and helpless and marginalized to expel one for pointing a finger at another student?  Of course not, but "we have a rule" against even pretending to be using a weapon and so because a student could conceivably think of his finger as a gun barrel, pointing it at someone is, in some mystical way punishable. A thought -- a presumed thought is magically identical with action.

We may laugh at the assertion that minimum wage laws stifle job creation because the State with the highest has the highest rate of job creation. We fail to laugh at our attempt to reduce school violence by insisting that a hug is assault, a kiss is rape and a finger is attempted murder. Silly, barbarous and cruel.

When an aspirin is "drugs;" when a nail clipper is a "weapon" -- when punishments explore the far reaches of what is reasonable and effective and meaningful and are defended with all the passion of a Spanish inquisitor without any  reference to the consequences --  so long as we continue to marginalize the reasonable for not adhering to formulas and incantations -- as long as we continue to marginalize decent, ordinary, well-intentioned people for saying the wrong word or pointing the wrong finger we will continue to be a little people: silly, greedy, barbarous and cruel.

The Clutching of Tea-stained Pearls

Three California House members held a "Kitchen Table Summit" ("Town Halls" are so passé), and Maxine Waters did what so few of our congresscritters are willing to do. She took a stand.

"I'm not afraid of anybody. This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell."

Personally, I think she should have gone with "Teabaggers," but, you know, decorum and shit.

I have no problem with what she said (particularly since her statement has been an unspoken theme in many of my blog posts over the last two years or so). But interestingly, it seems that some people got their panties all knotted up when her harsh words assaulted their delicate, shell-like ears.

Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, co-founders of the Tea Party Patriots, are calling on President Obama and leaders of the Democratic Party to "censure their own." They lambasted previous comments from Democrats that Tea Party supporters are "terrorists" and "hostage takers."

"Is civility required only of their opponents?" Martin and Meckler said in a statement. "...The president's silence on these latest violations of civility has been deafening, but not surprising."

Or to translate: "She said mean things and he didn't do anything!"

I suppose we should ignore that Obama's been staying out of almost all of the partisan infighting. And I guarantee that we're supposed to ignore all of the following statements:

"(An) Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug" ~~ Mark Williams, national spokesman for the Tea Party Express (2009-2010), on President Obama

"You lie!" ~~ Joe Wilson (R-SC; member, Tea Party Caucus), interrupting Obama's address before a joint session of Congress, after Obama said his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants (Sept. 9, 2009)

"He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity." ~~ Trent Franks (R-AZ; member, Tea Party Caucus), on President Obama (Sept. 26, 2009)

"We're on to them; we're on to this gangster government... I'd say it's time for these little piggies to go home," ~~ Michele Bachmann (R-MN; founder and chair, Tea Party Caucus), at the Tea Party's Tax Day protest in Washington, D.C. (April 15, 2010)

Please note: only one quote from Bachmann, despite reams of the stuff, from "death panels" to calling members of Congress "anti-American"

"You know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." ~~ Nevada GOP candidate and Tea Party darling Sharron Angle (Jan. 14, 2010)

And yes, only one Sharron Angle quote, too. She also had a raft of 'em, but she didn't get elected.

And to be fair, she might have meant "take out" as in "take out of office." Unless you take the whole quote in context, that is...

"As your governor, you're going to be seeing a lot of me on the front page, saying Governor LePage tells Obama to go to hell!" ~~ Governor Paul LePage (then Tea Party-backed candidate LePage, Sept. 29, 2010)

And I'm not saying that particular quote sounds familiar or anything...

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror" ~~ Iowa Rep. Steve King (member, Tea Party Caucus), on the result of candidate Obama getting elected president (Mar. 8, 2008)

Please note that I mostly avoided any failed Tea Party Candidate (except Angle, who was too wide-eyed and drooling to avoid). Like Glen Urquhart, who asked why liberals were Nazis (very common among the unhinged Right), or... really, Christine O'Donnell was one of the only Tea Party candidates who didn't spend most of her time vilifying her opponents - she was too busy proving herself to be a science-hating fundamentalist, with no real talent for either logic or statistics.

I'm not saying it means anything. I'm just saying that it's interesting.

Justified?

I'm constantly deleting political diatribes from my in-box that begin with wild claims about something the "liberal press" isn't telling us for nefarious reasons. Nearly always, it's already been in the headlines or never happened in the first place, but here's a story that doesn't seem to be getting enough exposure, considering the rants and tirades coming from Rush and Fox and other people trying to twist the Oslo massacre into something that shows persecution of Christians, whom we all know are never, ever violent -- not like those amoral Mao-loving Stalinist Atheists and devil worshiping Kalashnikov-carrying Muslims.

According to a new Gallup poll, when asked whether they're against violence that kills civilians, Muslims are most likely to answer in the affirmative at 78%. Atheists and agnostics are second at 56%, while only 38% of Protestants and 39% of Catholics would agree with such an affirmation of the value of human life.

Let me repeat it for the benefit of the many-headed beast: over 60% of those who identify as Christians, the overwhelming majority of Americans, will tolerate the slaughter of innocents versus only 22% of Muslims. Would I define all of these people as Christians - or Muslims for that matter? No I wouldn't, but that's hardly the point. It's wrong to absolve people with such a hypocritical ploy. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Quir'an ever killed anyone, but there is enough in them to provide a template, an excuse, a justification for nearly any abomination.

My long standing opinion that there are hardly any Christians around still stands and among that few, many would tell you the others weren't Christian either - as history proves, but applied to the question with us today: "is this a Christian Nation, based on Christian principles?" I can insist it's not. To the question of "are those alleged principles the best and only way" I would try not to laugh and offer the suggestion that we could use a large dose of Muslim and Humanist principles if we'd like Jesus to smile upon our arrogance, hypocrisy and pretension.

When asked whether it was justifiable for "an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians," Muslims still were far more likely to be 'Christian' about it with 89% answering in the negative and Christians again coming in last, behind the godless infidel. Can we begin to understand that the ancient religious wars between Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan and infidel have little to do with anything good.

Of course, to attempt discussion using terms like justice is like juggling water, but in my opinion, the enormous industry that scripts our opinions for us is showing it's hand here -- or bloody claw, if you prefer. If you want to know why we are the way we are regarding placing blame for violence and hatred, I might speculate that Muslims and Atheists and free thinkers aren't likely to be watching Fox or to follow Beck or Limbaugh or their hate filled and dishonest rants, while those who call themselves part of the Religious Right often do.

A year ago, a Pew Poll found that only 30 percent of Americans in general have a favorable view of Muslims. I think we know why and I think we know who is behind the unrelenting defamation: burning books, carrying signs in the street and opposing basic freedoms for Muslims in America.

After all, who has the most to gain from vilifying infidels or anyone else trying to oppose replacing secular law with Gospel Law? What are the goals of people who condemn humanism and those who assert their reverence for human life?

I have no doubt that the Religious Right will have no choice but to ignore these numbers or attack them with some neo-Ernulphian malediction and a chorus of Liberaiberaliberal and there is less than no doubt that they'll never give up on the notion of their special privileges and special, God-given right to dictate to all of us, lashing out at enemies they create for the purpose of distraction and ignoring the casualties.

The GOP and the government shutdown

Funny how quick they are to deny it, now that they're actually planning it...

The part I find funniest? Newt Gingrich's bit. After all, he was responsible for the last government shutdown, in 1995. (Which, incidentally, might have helped improve Clinton's approval ratings - so good planning there, guys).

Huckabee on the carpet

British comedian Ricky Gervais recently put together a short TV comedy series, Idiots Abroad; seven episodes indulging his obvious schadenfreude by making his "friend" and reputed moron Carl Pilkington miserable despite having been being sent to visit some wonderful places. It had the effect of annoying me since Pilkington, who isn't quite the idiot Gervais says he is, seems rather to be a nice and decent sort of fellow and deserved better treatment, even if that would undermine the premise of the show.

I don't feel quite the same way about Likable Mike Huckabee, affable and avuncular and sincere though he may seem. It's as hard to feel sympathy for one whose idiocy seems more purposeful and politically founded than genetic, although that may be a factor too. I'm not just talking about his shameless promotion of Bronze age ignorance and mythology and the snickering denigration of science. I'm not just talking about promoting the invasion of Libya and thus cementing the authority of Qaddafi, making us appear imperialistic and escalating the debt and putting a strain on our military capability. I'm talking abut his attempt to enlist a far more scurrilous bit of political mythology than "creation science" to promote his grotesque candidacy by telling us our president grew up in Africa and so really doesn't either understand us or have our interests at heart.

It's not just the racism. I'm used to racism. It's that the possibility of his candidacy rests on building and arming an insurgency of idiots who neither know or care about reality. It's like inviting the Klan to use your back yard for a rally and claiming you're above that sort of thing yourself.

It's not that he's black, you see -- it's just that you can't trust someone with the troubling attribute of being dark skinned. Smiling Mike surely knows that Barack Obama lived in Indonesia as a small boy but wasn't born in and didn't live in any part of Africa. He knows he was born in the USA as surely as Bruce Springsteen was and Mike Huckabee was and grew up in the American Midwest and was raised by his white relatives. So if he does know that and chooses none the less to have you believe otherwise, he's a liar willing to use lies to get elected. If he doesn't know that, he's an idiot to the degree that he shouldn't be given a more responsible or well paid position than a men's room attendant.

Huckabee shouldn't be trusted with leading a Boy Scout troop, much less the United States. He represents, despite his smiling, self-effacing sincerity, the lower skirt of the intellectual as well as the moral decency bell curve, no matter how you measure it.

Yes, professional fixer and HuckPAC Executive Director J. Hogan Gidley says Huckabee "simply misspoke" during his book tour, which is as convincing as saying the dog didn't crap on the carpet, but simply misshit. It only means he's not toilet trained, can't be trusted and we surely don't want him on the expensive rug in the oval office.

Just say Noh

When is a journalist not a journalist? It's a simple question with a very complicated answer and that answer has little to do with credentials or degrees. It can have nothing to do with whether the reporter reports the news or creates it from air like balloon animals at some kids' birthday party.

"Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist."

said assistant Press Secretary Philip J. Crowley to assembled reporters at a December 2nd press conference. You'd expect gasps and guffaws and whispered comments like "what about Fox?" but I didn't hear any. Perhaps the disturbing idea of objective reporting was a touchy and disturbing subject for the assembled employees of corporate entertainment interests whose jobs depend on the proper slant and the ability to make headlines out of flimsy and innocuous or even non-existent words and deeds. No, says the political actor, the presidential mouthpiece, under US law, he's to be considered a "political actor."

Welcome to quantum politics, where things that are said and things that are appear and disappear like virtual particles in a vacuum; where things are sometimes their opposites and truth is relative and ephemeral.

So when political actor Glenn Beck gets teary eyed and hysterical about the proposed ability of the FDA to take poisonous, contaminated food off the shelves because if they can control what you eat, they can control your lives: so when worn out beauty queen and political actress Gretchen Carlson can pose as a news anchor and get her botoxed and painted face twisted around her rehearsed outrage that a year ago, Tulsa exercised our American freedom of religion and started calling its annual December parade a "holiday" parade, just what the hell is this journalism that it could include this foolishness but be contaminated by a hatred of secrecy and the objective of exposing a government that has villainously smiled and smiled and smiled at one lie after another while millions died in consequence.

So truth, as we can know it, is political since the concept resides in the heads of humans and not in the stones and gas and vacuum of the universe and no one can see the truth but through the filter of his mind. Just who then can we call a real journalist and why not then just make it up as we go along and accept it all as improvisational theater.

Too many people have compared it all to Kabuki, with it's exaggerated expressions and dramatizations, but it's really Bunraku, where puppets are manipulated about a darkling stage by shadowy figures dressed in black. Figures that the audience is trained not to notice.

Joe the Dumber

Senator Joe Lieberman is a cheap, pandering whore without a principle in his head and without much concern for history. Instead of being able to come up with some means to combat and prevent acts of terrorism, he's still looking for ways to make a criminal organization into a superpower complete with Army, Navy, Air Force and probably nuclear missiles. Any one working for a foreign terrorist organization should be stripped of his rights as a citizen. He doesn't bother to clarify whether that's before or after a fair trial, but I suspect the whole idea of a fair trial is anathema to his sort of Neanderthal conservatism. What an idiotic response to a failed truck bomb: attack the cornerstone of American liberty.

I wonder if he stops to contemplate how the Jews of Europe were suddenly deemed by the German government as being agents of a hostile foreign power and stripped of citizenship -- allowing the confiscation of their property and their exile to death camps.

No, someone willing to kill hundreds of people at random in Times Square is going to be deterred by a subsequent withdrawal of his citizenship? The shade of Mohammad Atta is laughing in Hell. What about domestic terrorist/murderer Tim McVeigh? Oh, that's OK, he wasn't working for foreigners.

What does Lieberman hope to accomplish other than to give hope to the barbarian Right that we can do as we like to anyone who isn't a citizen? God only gave rights to Americans, you see.

Whether he doesn't bother to or doesn't have the brain power to dismiss that worthless gesture of idiot rage is something not worth speculating on, but it's obvious that Joe Lieberman is all about Joe Lieberman trying to get attention by once again trying to rattle the cage of the ignorati instead of adding anything worthwhile to an important effort.

Drop that Chalupa, Pedro

When those cold war movies I grew up on wanted to let you know the scene was not in the land of the free, we were furnished with Angst ridden scenes where the protagonist was asked for his papers by someone in a leather trench coat on some dark street corner. Maybe his accent was showing, the cut of his clothes -- maybe it was just routine, but we were all grateful that back here, in "freedom" we could go about our business without worry and the government was on our side.

The strangest thing about Arizona's new knee jerk immigration law is that Arizona is the spiritual home of small-government libertarianism and the feeling that Government is a necessary evil; perhaps more evil than necessary. They don't want the government telling them when and where or if they can keep and bear and conceal weapons, what they can eat, smoke or drink or what they can do on their property. They don't trust public education or public radio and they sure as hell don't want to pay for them. I suspect they'd raise holy hell if the police were to stop them at random looking for contraband or illegal weapons or even a drivers license, yet they're apparently quite happy to demand that anyone "suspicious" in that state must keep proof of citizenship on their person at all times, display such proof to any cop that feels like demanding it, or face serious consequences. Of course, if you're white, you're probably all right, so never mind.

To any unbiased observer this alone would more than hint of a police state and unconstitutional government interference in private life.

Sure, if the Arizona police were perfect human beings there would be little concern, but they're far from that. Still, those self-styled Libertarians seem quite happy to give unprecedented and perhaps unconstitutional power to Law enforcement to stop people and demand papers. It's pretty hard to maintain the pose of strict constitutional limits on government when the power reserved for the judicial branch is given to a cop on the beat. The various issues surrounding protecting citizens from government powers of search and seizure were a cornerstone of our rebellion against British rule -- as I shouldn't have to remind anyone.

Dare I speculate that the Libertarian label might, for a great many people, sometimes be only the phony ID that authoritarianism carries?

Evidently fear of aliens overrides high principle and what Arizona really wants is a government that cuts a swath through the law to root out what they want rooted out -- and the Constitution be damned. What they want is a government that lays it's fingers heavily on people they don't like and lays completely off anything that stands between them and whatever they please. Sorry cowboy; when you add in the racist element, this situational Libertarianism is too much like Fascism to make it worth trying to find a difference.

Twilight of the Godwins

I have to credit the rhetorical craftiness of self-anointed conservatives who often get away with dismissing inevitable and even necessary comparisons by invoking Godwin's Law. Yes, it's inevitable that when discussing sudden transitions from civilized societies, the implosion of modern, liberal democratic, constitutional governments into to absolutist and racist tyrannies and the techniques employed, Hitler will come up. It's just as likely that Albert Einstein will come up in discussions of relativity or Tomas de Torquemada in studying the Inquisition. Just try to study the Bush administration and not think of Orwell. Try it, I dare you. Invoking Godwin as though it were more than a humorous observation is simply a tactical diversion and it seems to work by embarrassing the one who brought it up.

Barack Obama is hardly the first President to be accused absurdly of tyranny, fascism or of being a socialist, for that matter. Lincoln's assassin called him a tyrant, both Roosevelts were accused of being socialists long before the current president was born and in my day, anyone who didn't think it worth millions of lives to keep Vietnam from holding free elections was simply a Commie. Remember when Ho Chi Min wanted Humphrey to win so Happy Hubert was a Communist?

Hell, anybody who Joe McCarty didn't like for quoting the Constitution or really any reason at all was carrying that invisible card and his name was on the invisible list. Too bad there wasn't an easily produced "law" telling us that the longer a right wing apologia goes on, the more likely that Stalin or Mao will come up. Too bad there still isn't one, since people likely to make such transcendentally hyperbolic comparisons between the pragmatic, cautious Mr. Obama and absolute tyrants who caused tens of millions of deaths aren't likely to listen to arguments that are factual or too long to fit on a hand lettered cardboard sign. It would be nice to shut them off with Fogg's Law, wouldn't it?

As of late, discussions of the president begin with or are preceded by the rather airborne assumption that he's Mao Zedong, Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot rolled into some bearded bin Laden burrito, but then his father was black. Bill Clinton's father was only a white drinker and perhaps a philanderer so one usually had to wait for a sentence or two before the comparisons were dredged up -- and dredged up they always were. Yes, Bill was not only a murderer, not only going to "force health care down our throats" but going to give control of our armed forces to the UN. Bill, who murdered Vince Foster and ran a Coke smuggling operation out of Little Rock was planting nuclear weapons underneath our cities while indulging in Communist free love and of course his socialist tax increase was going to bankrupt our economy within months and destroy capitalism forever!

But no, it was terribly wrong to bring up fascism when his successor made that office the most powerful it had ever been, with the power to override congress and the courts and the Constitution. Terribly wrong when his propaganda machine began to scapegoat real and invented enemies, terribly wrong when he demanded and got special emergency powers by invoking threats that were substantially imaginary if not fraudulent. Smile and say Godwin and we're done.

Obama? Of course he's Communist and Fascist and never mind the contradiction. Of course he's a tyrant for the same reason Lincoln was a tyrant, the same reason Teddy Roosevelt was and FDR and don't you dare bring up Godwin this time!

land of the Prison, home of the Coward

Yes, our personal freedom has been irrevocably damaged by a weak attempt to control swashbuckling Insurance company practices and there's nothing ahead but free fall into the pit of Socialism - or Fascism if your paranoia runs better in that direction. I can't get through an hour without hearing the whining about "Obamacare" and "American values."

Of course there's little fear that the attempt to make it legal for a suspect to be held forever without trial will jeopardize our "freedom" at all. There's not too much concern that proof of innocence can't overturn a death sentence either. Freedom you see, is a personal, even solipsistic thing and like personal income, we Libertarians don't want to share it or spread it around. I need to be free to do anything, free from any responsibility to the country, but you can rot in hell, for all I care. Some call that Libertarian, some conservative, but either attempt is like pasting a label to Teflon - it won't stick. What it really is, is panic and what it's really not is justice. Yes, I know, if your one of those Glennbecky sorts, you'll insist that justice itself is one of many gates to hell and the corridor to Communism, but if you're one of those, you belong there anyway.

But here's an example or two: Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate's Armed Services, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees, wants to talk us into legislation that allows a "terrorism suspect" to be held forever without charges and without counsel. That's right, I said suspect. What's a suspect? it's whatever some justice department apparatchik or some informant or unnamed source says it is.

“There has to be some type of statute -- and he’s been clear on that -- for indefinite detention,” said Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop. An accused person is "too dangerous to release; but we also aren’t going to try them in either a military or a civilian court. So there has to be a system for that, and that’s why Senator Graham is looking for a legal framework."

Too bad there's no longer any framework to determine whether someone is actually dangerous, is a terrorist or even what terrorism is under such legislation, but never mind -- the government just knows and we're comfortable with that. Limited justice and limited freedom you see, is limited government.

And that doesn't scare you; not like filling out a census form, not like keeping your insurance from being canceled the day after they find that tumor because you had an unreported toothache in 1972. None the less, we want limited government, but only as concerns us, not them. A life sentence for suspicion is

"un-American and violates our commitment to due process and the rule of law,"

says the ACLU, as you'd expect from those Commies. Don't they understand we're afraid? Don't they understand that American values aren't worth taking a risk for?

They aren't worth taking a risk for in Texas; just ask Troy Davis, sentenced to die for a brutal triple murder in a trial so flawed it makes my hair stand on end. One of the victims, for instance, had complained of abuse and threats from a third party, who was not even interviewed by police. Ten years ago David Protess, at The Innocence Project at Northwestern University, whose group has exonerated 17 condemned prisoners using DNA evidence the court never saw, re-examined the case with his students and concluded Skinner is innocent. Texas won't reconsider a conviction based on new evidence. In Texas, innocence is no defense and Texas, for all it's guns and bravado is so terrified of Davis that they're willing to kill him and the hell with reasonable doubt. Fortunately, the Supreme court isn't from Texas and has granted a stay, just an hour before the execution

Sure, we want limited government, but with unlimited power to do whatever feels expedient and damn the very idea of social justice and screw anyone who ever thought the USA was worth fighting for. Don't you understand we're afraid?

Who, me?

O that ye would altogether hold your peace! and it should be your wisdom.

-Job 13:5-

California state Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) is very concerned about the "gay agenda" and he's been a fierce opponent of same sex marriage and a "family values" blowhard for a long time. Although many don't agree with my feeling that such obsession is a cover up, examples keep emerging with regularity and it's hard even to list the most humorous ones. Senator Ashburn was recently arrested for drunk driving in downtown Sacramento early Wednesday morning. There's no particular surprise there and I imagine many other patrons leaving the gay bar "Faces" in the wee hours had had a bit too much to drink. He was given a field sobriety test and promptly taken off to jail. I don't know what happened to his "unidentified male companion."

Perhaps it will be less of a surprise to hear that Angelo Balducci, a "Gentleman of His Holiness," was caught on a police wiretap negotiating for the services of male prostitutes with a Vatican Chorister. No official comments have yet been published.

The pattern emerged a long time ago, even before Wide Stance Larry tapped his toes in Minneapolis and whether you do or don't agree with me, I'm going to bet that more often than not, the biggest and most assertive opponents of gay rights and fantasy fabricators are dealing with difficult inner longings. Perhaps after all, if you'll forgive my radical libertarianism, the best way to hide them and to avoid suspicion is to simply leave gay people alone?

Tiger Tiger

Tiger Tiger sinning bright
Crashed his SUV one night

Brit Hume here for the amazing Redeem-O-Matic Christian sinwashing system. That's right folks, no accountability, no bitchy paybacks, no hard work, no punishment, no silly pagan begging for rice in uncomfortable robes! This miracle device lets you feel like you're off the hook instantly and it won't cost you a dime. Come to Jesus now ( 'cause you know we can't do this all day) and we'll double the offer -- you get 14 adulteries washed for one dunk.

Fox hound Hume tells nominally Buddhist Tiger Woods and us that Buddhism is a second rate religion because you don't get the same quick-kick forgiven feeling you get with Christianity. No, really.

'Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

said Hume to Chris Wallace on Fox this morning. Well I don't know about old Prune Face, but I would prefer my "great example" to spend more than a Sunday morning's glossolalia session and perhaps seek to make amends to his wife and children -- perhaps even to any of those women he may have deluded into thinking their relationships were going anywhere before punching the reset button on his moral character.

Of course the selling of Christianity like some labor saving kitchen device or laundry product should offend Christians and I'm sure it does, hell, I feel offended for them, but that's Fox, and that's Hume. Join our tribe, buy our stories, splash on some anger sauce and religious whitewash and you'll feel better about your sorry self right away. You getting this camera guy?

"Sex," Fame, and Polish (but not only) Hypocrisy

I try to stay away from celebrities and tawdriness as much as possible, mainly because of my pretentious and uppity elitism, but also, to a lesser extent, because the affairs of celebrities are supremely boring.

This case, however, is irresistible for its strange twists and turns, as well as a whiff of both Polishness and uppity elitism with its abominable hypocrisy. I'm talking of course about the saga of Polish director Roman Polanski, who was finally arrested in Switzerland on Saturday and faces extradition to USA. Or maybe not, as his lawyer vows to fight it.

For those who live underwater and away from mass media, a brief recap of Polanski's situation: in 1977 he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, and was able to plead guilty to a lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. Afterward, the judge in his case, one Laurence Rittenband, allegedly reneged on his plea deal, which scared Polanski enough to flee to the welcoming bosom of Mother Europe. Polanski was on the run from justice for over 30 years. For more background on Polanski's case, see this.

What's surprising, among many surprises here, is that he periodically lived in Switzerland, undisturbed by authorities, so questions are being raised about the timing of his arrest. Some clear-eyed observers even suggested that this is a gesture of good will on the part of the Swiss, intended to placate Americans angry about Switzerland giving financial shelter to our domestic financial terrorists whiz kids. A strange coincidence no.1: Polanski's arrest came two days after the death of Susan Atkins, who murdered his second wife, Sharon Tate, during a Manson-led and inspired drunken orgy in 1969. A strange coincidence no.2: one day before Polanski's arrest, Poland adopted a new tough law requiring castration for pedophiles (more about it later).

Polanski's arrest has ignited an international debate again, and many law experts and film buffs have weighed in with sympathetic opinions, hoping his case will be dismissed. Among those pleading for leniency is his victim, now 45-year-old Samantha Geimer (previously Gailey), who settled with Polanski, years after her rape, for somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars for "emotional distress." Geimer has asked numerous times for the case against Polanski to be dropped, saying that dredging it up causes her undue stress and pain.

But Polanski never really admitted to his crime, claiming both that the victim lied to him about her age and that the "sex" was consensual. Of course he never expressed any remorse. In fact, he has absolved himself of responsibility, as seen in the footage of the documentary about him, where he says, defiantly, I like young women, let me put it this way. I think most of men do.

Maybe. But a 13-year-old girl is not a woman, not psychologically, and certainly not legally. Polanski knew this very well when he drugged and raped Samantha. He was 44 at the time and very much attracted to young teenage girls. This is what Samantha looked like as a teen (left).

As to consensual, a 44-year-old man who drugs a 13-year-old (or anyone, for that matter) and forces himself on her, while she is crying and protesting, can hardly make this claim. See this for a transcript of Samantha's testimony in court.

It is not unreasonable to suspect that Gailey was not the only child who fell victim to Polanski's forbidden urges. Pedophiles are not reformable, and are known to be repeat offenders. Not long after his escape to Europe, Polanski was photographed parading around in company of very young, likely underage, females.

Another twisted aside: Polanski's wife, French actress Emmanuele Seigner, is younger than his victim. Seigner (below right, with Polanski in Paris, 2007) was an adult of the ripe age of 23 when they married. Polanski was 56. They have two children together, a son and a daughter.

The documentary I mention above, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, directed by Marina Zenovich, paints an extremely sympathetic portrait of Polanski as a victim of miscarried justice. While Zenovich seemingly acknowledges the awfulness of his crime, she is clearly in awe of Polanski's talent and less than objective in her assessment. She calls him misunderstood and endlessly fascinating.

As Bill Wyman of Salon.com writes, In "Wanted and Desired," Zenovich casts Polanski, whose face repeatedly fills the screen with a Byronic luminosity, as a tragic figure, a child survivor of the Holocaust haunted by the murder of his wife, the actress Sharon Tate, at the hands of the Manson family. His friends are uniformly supportive: "This is somebody who could not be a rapist!" one exclaims.

When interviewed about the movie, Zenovich made this strange statement: If it was a violent rape I wouldn't have made this film. She added that it was a tragedy for all involved. It's not for me to judge.

I am dumbfounded. So, say, if knives, ropes, and swinging fists were used, it would have been a reprehensible rape for Ms. Zenovich, enough so that she would not make an apologetic movie about the perp. But since it was only alcohol and drugs, it was acceptable enough? Besides, how was it a tragedy for all involved? And how is it not for her to judge? She is deluding herself if she thinks that she is not offering a judgment by showing such a one-sided portrayal of the story. This is as an advanced and incurable case of celebritis as I have seen.

But of course Zenovich is not alone in putting lipstick on this particularly ugly pig. During a discussion about the case on The View, Whoopi Goldberg said this:

I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't think it was rape-rape.

Boy, I tell ya... And people wonder why Janes and Joes Schmoes don't trust and don't like the Hollywood types. The gulf between the librul, rotten-to-the-core Hollywood and non-nonsense Main Street has just widened with the Polanski's case, probably to unbridgeable proportions.

To put things in perspective for Ms. Zenovich, Ms. Goldberg, and other celebrity-stricken Polanski's defenders, let's recall what the man did exactly:

(...) Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her… Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let’s take a moment to recall that according to the victim’s grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, “No,” then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

I dunno, to me it sounds and looks like rape-rape.

The bizarre, if not downright psychopathic, reaction of the political and artistic elites to Polanski's arrest continues. The French are up in arms:

French foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (co-founder of Doctors without Borders, EM) and Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand both sharply criticised US and Swiss authorities over the arrest, which came as the Franco-Polish director arrived in Zurich to receive an award.(...) Mr Mitterrand said on Sunday that Polanski, director of Rosemary's Baby and an Oscar winner for The Pianist, had been "thrown to the lions over an ancient affair that doesn't make any sense." To jail him, he added, was "absolutely dreadful." Mr Kouchner said: "This affair is frankly a bit sinister ... Here is a man of such talent, recognised worldwide, recognised especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice at all."

Huh? I'm as uppity an elitist as they come, so I can tell you what's absolutely dreadful, sinister, and not nice at all: drugging and raping kids (or anyone, for that matter), and not feeling any remorse for it, that's what.

But of course the French (who may have other motives for defending Polanski) are not alone. The film community (which has been silent about many pressing issues facing our nation), has spoken loudly and clearly on behalf of the pedophile and law-evading fugitive.

As Reuters reports, the Zurich Film Festival jury accused Switzerland of "philistine collusion" with U.S. authorities and wore red badges reading "Free Polanski," and Debra Winger, president of the Festival, which was to give Polanski an honorary award, said the following: We hope today this latest order will be dropped. It is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead but for minor technicalities.

Whoa. One would think Polanski is some human rights advocate, imprisoned for standing up for the voiceless and dispossessed. A Gandhi, almost. So let's just remind ourselves, again, before we start shedding tears here, that he is an unrepentant pedophile, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then ran from justice.

Joining Polanski's apologists are other Hollywood (and not only) big names, who have prepared a petition demanding his release. The petition is signed, so far, by 138 celebrities and industry people, including Woody Allen (now there is a surprise), Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar, Martin Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, Tilda Swinton, David Lynch, Jonathan Demme, John Landis, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Wim Wender, Salman Rushdie, Bernard-Henri Levy, Milan Kundera, Isabelle Huppert, Diane von Furstenberg, and is backed by France's Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers). It states, in part:

"It seems inadmissible (...) that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him. (...) The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance ... opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."

Sigh. Actions of which no one can know the effects? Folks, the guy drugged and raped a 13-year-old and then fled the country to avoid prison. He should be held responsible for his crime, period. What mysterious effects do you have in mind? Unless by this you mean that predators and criminals cannot hide in supposedly neutral places and evade the law forever. But that should be no mystery to you or anyone, I hope.

Meanwhile, Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanski. As his company told CNN, We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation.

Again, and I know I repeat myself and bore you to death, the only terrible situation here is that an admitted and unrepentant pedophile has been on the run for over 30 years, enjoying freedom, fame and wealth, and abusing who knows how many other victims. Was Mr. Weinstein trying to fix that in the past 30 years? No, I didn't think so.

One of the many bizarre twists of this case is the fact that Mia Farrow, who starred in Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, and years later accused her own long-time boyfriend, Woody Allen, of sexually abusing their adopted children, has consistently defended Polanski in the media.

But wait, there is more.

Joan Shore, co-founder of Women Overseas for Equality(!) and a Polanski fan, wrote a blog post for HuffPo titled, Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss -- read it, it's a full-blown apologia for the perp and a classic example of blaming the victim.

Another HuffPo blogger, writer and film critic John Farr wrote a post titled, Leniency for Polanski. In it, he argues, unbelievably, but predictably, that Polanski should be forgiven because 1. he is a genius, 2. he's suffered so much in his life, 3. his victim wants him released; 4. he's paid for his crime (no explanation how), and 5. he is reformed (i.e., is married and with no other accusations of abuse -- as if that ever mattered in cases of pedophiles). Oh, and 6. it was a long time ago.

Under the onslaught of critical comments from HuffPo's readers, Farr has revised some of his most egregious statements already, including one about "seduction" that supposedly took place on that fateful day in 1977.

Perhaps the most mind-boggling, to me, reactions to Polanski's arrest have come from the Polish political and artistic circles. Polish politicians have spoken on Polanski's behalf:

Poland and France intend to make a joint appeal to Switzerland and the United States to have Polanski released from his detention, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish news agency PAP. Sikorski said he and French counterpart Bernard Kouchner also plan to ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to offer Polanski clemency.

A semi-relevant aside: Radek Sikorski is a Polish neocon, who worked, for years, for American Enterprise Institute and The National Review. He is married to American journalist, Anne Applebaum, who penned an impassioned piece in defense of Polanski for The Washington Post. It is relevant to mention it since neocons tend to be socially conservative and one would expect them to condemn a child rape and its perpetrator. One would be wrong.

Among Polish luminaries speaking out in Polanski's defense is film director Krzysztof Zanussi, who called Polanski's rape victim a "young prostitute," and Polanski, a victim of a sinister plot concocted by the "prostitute" and her mother to extort money from him. In a Polish TV talk show, Zanussi said the following (translation mine):

Zanussi: If (Polanski) were not so famous, the fact that over thirty years ago in Los Angeles, which is a city of particularly loose morals, he used services of some underage prostitute, because that's what it likely was...

Interrupted by a female journalist, Monika Olejnik: No, no. This was a 13-year-old girl, she was not a prostitute. It was not for money, so it was not prostitution.

Zanussi: In this world, there are many things that are done not for money but for fame, for career. (...) I know (Polanski) as a man who escaped the ghetto, who is tragic and has those "dark chapters" in his life. I think if he were not famous, this matter would not have had any traction today. (...) I don't believe in the victim's innocence. She does not appear to have been there by accident. In this circle of people, who would do anything for career and money, it seems that the intent of the mother, who was involved in it, was an attempt at blackmailing Polanski. At taking anything from him that he could give. And he did not give it, and that was his mistake. He could have paid them off and he didn't. Maybe he was too proud for it, too Polish.

Holy crap... First of all, there isn't anything "Polish" about this behavior, I just have to say this. At least I hope there isn't -- because if that's Polish, then Poles are screwed (no pun whatsoever).
(Another aside: I can tell you from personal experience of having grown up in Poland that there is -- or was, back in my day -- a pedophile on every street corner. And those who do not operate on street corners can be found in doctors' offices, schools, churches, and in any other place frequented by young people. Yes, I'm talking about the abusers in position of authority, who remain as untouchable as their victims stay nameless, bearing silent scars for a long time, if not forever.)

Second, it is painfully obvious that Zanussi, who, btw, is one of the most renowned and respected Polish film directors, has no clue about details of the Polanski's case (at least I hope so, because if he does know the details and still says these things, it makes matters worse). That does not stop him from offering his unequivocal defense of his friend and smearing the reputation of his child-victim. That's not Polish, any of it.

But then one wouldn't know it perusing Polish media. For Zanussi is not alone in his ignorant and harmful defense of the famous pedophile. A well-known Polish actress, Dorota Stalinska, said this (translation mine):

First of all, it was not rape, but consensual sex with an underage girl. We know that a 13-year-old girl may look 20. I have a 20-year-old son. He could tell you how 13-year-old girls behave and how they provoke and jump into beds not only of 20-year-olds, but of 40-year-olds. 13-year-old girls seduce grown men. It's the same in Poland and everywhere else. Zanussi is right.

And then there is Lech Wałęsa -- you may remember him as the founder of Solidarity, the first president of post-socialist Poland, and the Nobel Peace Prize winner. Wałęsa too defends Polanski:

(Polanski) is a great person, he's done so much for Poland and the world. He also could have sinned. Make sure he really did sin. If he did, you can forgive him this one. I will do everything I can to defend him. (...) I am his friend.

How Christian, to forgive the sinner and forget the victim. Ugh.

This is disheartening. I can see that not much has changed in Poland in matters of sexual abuse and treatment of the victims. In these respects, Polish social mores, if not the law, are still in the Middle Ages.

This quote, however, really takes my cake:

Polanski has already "atoned for the sins of his young years," Jacek Bromski, head of the Polish Filmmakers Association, told The AP. "He has paid for it by not being able to enter the U.S. and in his professional life he has paid for it by not being able to make films in Hollywood."

Um... You're kidding, right? Not being able to make films in Hollywood is the heart-breaking punishment for child rape and 30+ years of evading justice?

But, wait, it gets stranger yet.

The day before Polanski's arrest, Poland approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases, sparking criticism from human rights groups. Under the law, sponsored by Poland's center-right government, pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

"The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person," the government said in a statement.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said late last year he wanted obligatory castration for pedophiles, whom he branded 'degenerates'. Tusk said he did not believe "one can use the term 'human' for such individuals, such creatures.Therefore I don't think protection of human rights should refer to these kind of events.".

So there we have it, a curious -- or not -- double standard. Pedophiles are considered degenerates in Poland now, undeserving of human rights. Except when they are famous filmmakers with powerful friends, that is.

An inescapable lesson from Polanski's saga so far: if you are going to rape a child, don't be a plumber or auto mechanic; be famous and rich. Then justice will be slow and lenient for you, and people will forgive your crime. Nah, they'll be clamoring to speak out in your defense.

P.S. In yet another strange twist to this already twisted story, one of the defense witnesses in Polanski's case, interviewed by Zenovich for her documentary, recanted his statement regarding Judge Rittenband.

Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere.

Same old

"marijuana is “dangerous” and “has no medical benefit,”

says our new "Drug Czar." What the hell our Republic is doing with Czars at all mystifies me, but no more than these baseless statements made contrary to evidence. He's not a doctor, he's not a historian, he's not a toxicologist or statistician: he's a cop.

Former Seattle, Washington police chief Gil Kerlikowske seems to me to be the worst of President Obama's appointments and it leads me to wonder whether he put any thought into the matter, or chose him to appease the gigantic, bloated and quasi-fascistic anti drug industry. If it's the latter, then the irony of the observation that it was in large part to keep the gigantic anti-alcohol industry employed that Cannabis was made illegal in 1937 with forged medical testimony and fabricated stories about brain damage published by William Randolph Hearst who hated the hemp growers because they were lowering the price of wood pulp that he was heavily invested in.

Back when it was fashionable to be logical, or at least it wasn't proof of criminal intent and religious heresy, arguments based on first principles could be challenged by petitio principii or "begging the question." Just how does this sneering Barny Fife know there is no medical benefit when Physicians insist there is -- or that it is dangerous when physicians say it isn't? What makes it so dangerous that it is the most restricted substance in America -- more than botulotoxin or Plutonium or nitroglycerin?

We're back in an age of faith however, but at risk of sounding like an infidel, I'd like to ask our Czar here for a shred of peer reviewed evidence and I don't mean the opinions of Cops. I'd like to ask Mr. Obama just what the hell he was thinking about or whom he was bowing to when he decided to put some cop in charge of public morality as well, but the chance of getting any answer is so remote it isn't worth wasting time on --especially in a country where you get a knock on the door if you ask too much.

Hypocrisy house

Republicans deal with the almost daily revelations of sexual scandal in the "family Values" party by reminding us that there are Democrats who cheat as well. Of course the Democrats aren't the ones claiming that government should be more intrusive into the private sex lives of private citizens and they haven't made that nebulous phrase part of every party platform for decades, nor do they seem to be so brazenly promiscuous. So I'm sure that the latest evidence that the Family valuers may be running a veritable school for scoundrels on 133 C Street SE in Washington DC won't have any more effect than Larry Craig's wide stance on their claim to moral authority.

The house in question is owned by a shadowy "Christian" group called The Fellowship, one of those insisting that we are a Christian Nation and should have "Christian Values" without of course giving us any idea what those might be or why they might be different from non-Christian values. They assert that our leaders should be led by God rather than by the will of the electorate which is shockingly reminiscent of the government our founding fathers found to be anathema, and of course it's their God as interpreted by them.

But it's a rooming house as well as a lobbying and indoctrination center and Congressmen board there and claim to find it a place to study the Bible and the commands of Faith-based lobbyists. Moral pillars of the community who have resided at the house on C Street, like John Ensign and Mark Sanford and Chip Pickering are and have been involved in extramarital affairs. Need I point out that three out of five is a considerable majority? It would be enlightening to compare the rent they pay with similar rents on that street of elegant brownstones - and of course interesting to entities such as the IRS. Is there quid pro quo or votes for rent?

To me, the question of whether religious conviction is a marker for moral hypocrisy and turpitude is less important than the fact that at least 5 Senators and Representatives may being subsidized by a lobbying group posing as a Church. The Fellowship, which has been criticized for supporting such tyrants as Suharto, is run by the Coe family who take down large salaries. David Coe, the presumptive heir to the throne, has suggested that members of The Family are here to learn how to rule the world.

Of course it's only my opinion, but I'm convinced that the constant howling about socialism and Marxism and Liberalism and secularism from the Right is a smokescreen for organizations like this who are declared enemies of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion and are runningMadrassas teaching revolution, one congressman at a time.

Glass houses

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time understanding the pervasive attitude toward the Chinese crackdown on rioting Muslim separatists in Xinjian - if indeed that's what is happening. Articles like this one at Newsweek.com stress the "spin" being put on the rioting and the government response to it and indeed the reasons behind the unrest. I don't pretend to have facts that would challenge any accounts of what's going on, but I do have some history that fairly screams hypocrisy.

How many countries, including our own, treat separatist, secessionist movements without violence? How many can claim fair treatment for ethnic minorities? After all we've taken the opposite side in Israel, we came down hard and violently against the rather small Black Separatist movement here in the 1960's and there can't be anybody who hasn't heard of the bloody suppression of a Southern separatist movement in the 1860's. And then there were the Indian wars. There was the brutal supression of the labor movement in tth 1930's, brutal supression of anti- Vietnam war protesters and enough more to suggest that we're living in a glass house.

We concoct stories of Mexican separatism to scare children and Republicans and to support arguments for ethnic cleansing, yet we allow freedom of speech protection to White Separatists and Alaskan Separatists. I could go on, but it's easier to ask what the US would do if Texas, Arizona and New Mexico were to ask to secede, taking all the mineral and oil resources with them for ethnic and religious reasons. I think you know the answer.

Are we going to tell ourselves we support the Uighurs while a good part of America writes me e-mails demanding that "we" throw the Muslims out of the US? While we won't accept Uighurs we've falsely accused and jailed and abused because we are afraid of them?

Sure, China is trying hard to suppress news coverage. Heard much first hand coverage from Afghanistan lately or from any of the provinces where we're bombing and killing civilians every day in Pakistan? Were you accused of being a terrorist supporter or accomplice for questioning the WMD idea or the destruction of a neutral country? Many of us were, yet here we are, China bashing with tarnished halos and blood on our wings.

Is it just me...

...or is holding a politically partisan and divisive protest in DC on the the weekend of 9/11 a really bad idea?

09.12.09 National Taxpayer Protest | The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill

Those involved in planning and promoting this--and everyone who attends--should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the memories of those who were affected by the 9/11 attacks, for partisan gain.

The golden finger

High above the Summer Palace outside of Beijing, there's a temple housing what is billed as a thousand armed Buddha. After some huffing and heavy breathing, one finds that it doesn't have a thousand arms and it really isn't the Buddha, but even this amazing, arm laden idol doesn't have enough middle fingers to flip the bird to every religious leader arrogant enough to tell us what to do.

I only have two of my own and so, being in the mood today, I'll concentrate on two of my favorites. Let's start with Ted Haggard. Remember Ted, the hypocrite who tried to use tears and maudlin prayers to regain his status as someone fit to tell you how to live your life after he was exposed as having "prayer sessions" with a male prostitute? Well it seems he liked amateurs even more, having had a lengthy affair with a very young male parishioner who cost the Church a good deal of money to pay off. I wonder if the upcoming HBO documentary intended to rebuild his reputation will include this new embarrassment and whether all this money taken from the pockets of pious parishioners and intended for good works will be enough to whitewash the hypocrisy and the impudence of advising other people about the immorality of his own favorite pastime: buggering young men. I'd sooner ask Bernie Madoff for investment advice than listen to this self-appointed con-man. This finger is for you, Ted.

And speaking of flim-flam, what about the fantastically finger-worthy ex-Nazi in a dress from Rome who has the arrogance to condemn the United States for sending aid to sick and impoverished Africans without their strings attached. The Vatican has now condemned the "arrogance of those in power who think they can decide between life and death." I'd briefly summarize the arrogance of the organization that has been doing exactly that for about 1700 years, but even the brief version is far too lengthy for this venue. I'll limit the summation of my discontent to Rome's disregard for the lives of millions and millions of raped African women and the millions of AIDS infected pregnant women and the millions of African women with infected husbands who need protection. Sure, the few bucks taken from widows and orphans elsewhere in the world often go to heal the poorer and needier, or what's left over after paying off the children raped by agents of Rome, that is -- but no mention of birth control and no mention of Abortion. That would be immoral.

The beauty of the Finger lies in its brevity -- and so this finger is for you, Ratzinger -- and I really mean it.

I feel pretty

Remember when they raised holy hell about Bill Clinton's $200 haircut? Then there was Edwards' $400 do and all the snide jokes about how that made any concern for working people moot. Then of course, came Mitt Romney with his $2000 hair.

This stuff matters. Nixon's loss to Kennedy was in part attributed to his 5 O'clock shadow and greenish complexion. Reagan wouldn't go on camera without makeup, whether it was the movie camera or the news camera. But any question as to extravagant concerns with looking good have to take into account John McCain's $5,500 face.

Hey, he's 72 and has facial scars and his fishbelly white skin is the result of avoiding the sun as assiduously as Count Dracula because of his history of Melanoma. He's got a lot to cover up and I'm not just talking about his past statements and his past associations.

Don't get me wrong - it's his face and his money - and with a hundred million dollar wife who gets the tax breaks that hundred million dollar folks do, it's chump change. If there's any significance in any of this, it's only to point out the hilarity of the "elitist Obama" charade. Crew cut Barak strikes me as more of the neighborhood barber shop kind of guy - and of course he has far less to hide.

Spear Chucker

According to Raw Story, Mark Salter, a top McCain aide, told the Wall Street Journal last Friday that the campaign was tired of "catching the spears." That's right, he called Obama a spear-chucker.

The "spears" of course were allegations of McCain's unsavory connections with unsavory people, enough of which are sufficiently beyond question that the McCain campaign needs to invoke the victim image again in order to distract from the lobbyist crew that run the McCain/Palin Cirque de Sleazy.

The plan is to go negative, and this from a campaign Karl Rove thought was too negative already! This from the Swift Boat Party, the party who dragged McCain's baby daughter through the racist mud: the party that regularly paints war heroes as malingerers and familiars of bin Laden.

I really can't wait to see them resurrect the Pastor Wright controversy against the background of Sarah Palin's witch hunting "spiritual" leader. So far they have been rather successful in convincing us that McCain was exonerated in the Keating affair (he was censured for bad judgment) and in tap dancing around the information that despite his phony anti-lobbyist rhetoric, his top aides were lobbyists for Burma, various African dictators, oil tyrants and child enslavers, but the Clean John image is too flimsy to hold up for long.

I have a feeling that the mud slinging will backfire with all but his most psychotic admirers, but for connoisseurs of hypocrisy it's going to be quite a show anyway.

Cross posted from Human Voices